1. Field of the Invention
The present invention relates generally to cleaner compositions. More particularly, the present invention relates to such cleaner compositions that remove graffiti including conventional graffiti, such as oil based paints including enamels, epoxies, lacquers and urethanes, ink, marking pen marks, paint, lipstick, shoe polish and nail polish from a variety of surfaces without damage to the protective coat on the surface and without altering the surface or causing damage to any area in close proximity thereto. Also, the present invention relates to cleaner compositions that have very low evaporation rate and very high flash point.
The present invention includes five particular cleaner compositions each for different kinds of surface. Each of the five compositions include certain active ingredients and additives, however the range of the active ingredients and the use of additional ingredients varies in each composition.
In recent years, there has been an increase concern over the rapidly growing problem of graffiti. In modern times, the term graffiti has come to acquire a meaning that differs substantially from it's historical meaning. Specifically, the modern observer views graffiti not as an art form, but rather, as a form of destruction and vandalism.
The application of graffiti has become most prevalent in institutions, such as, schools, school buses, public and private buildings, automobiles, trucks, trains, cars and rest rooms that are available to the public at large. Graffiti is even more problematic in open areas, such as, support walls and piers, bridges, retaining walls, sound barriers, the exterior walls of buildings and various structures in parks, which incidentally were put there in the first place to cosmetically improve the parks and the like.
The methods for the removal of graffiti, that for the most part are cost prohibitive, have included, sandblasting, hydrosanding and hydroblasting the surfaces on which the graffiti appears. These methods often involve a subsequent re-painting of the surface to restore its aesthetically pleasing appearance since sandblasting, hydrosanding and hydroblasting make a surface porous and rough. Depending on the nature of the surface, such methods could have a potentially deleterious effect to the surface. For example, such methods can etch or score the surface thereby creating a degree of porosity that assists in holding later applied graffiti to the surface, as well as to any area in close proximity. Also, sandblasting will emit potentially carcinogenic and siliceous particles into the air. Moreover, such methods can not be used for polycarbonate, acrylic, plexiglass, glass and certain plastic surfaces.
Another method for removing graffiti includes chemical removal, such as acids and caustic solutions, to treat the surface on which the graffiti appears. This method has proven costly and unsuccessful. It has been found that repeated chemical cleaning quickly destroys the painted surface, necessitating frequent repainting. The application of such strong chemical cleanets also have a deleterious effect to the surrounding environment and on the person applying the chemicals. Further, chemical treatment is also not effective on polycarbonate, acrylic, plexiglass, glass and certain plastic surfaces since etching, fogging and melting will occur on such surfaces. Still further, some of the chemicals are now either banned as pollutants to the environment or, perhaps, in the process of being banned.
Perhaps the most common way of removing graffiti is to repaint the surface. As can be appreciated, this approach is perhaps the least effective. It requires the use of a paint that is capable of covering and masking the graffiti without the graffiti pigment colors bleeding through the overcoat during the relatively short period of time it takes the overcoat to set up or dry. Obviously, repainting of a surface is costly and, moreover, painting most often will obliterate the desired surface finish of many surfaces such as polycarbonate, acrylic, plexiglass and glass surfaces.
2. Description of the Prior Art
U.S. Pat. No. 4,716,056 to Frank Fox and Cassius Leys, an inventor of the present invention, issued on Dec. 29, 1987 and is titled: a System for Treating a Surface. It provides a system having a composition that treats a surface to render it substantially resistant to subsequent markings and to permit it to be readily and inexpensively cleaned using a particular cleaning composition without altering the surface or causing damage to any area in close proximity thereto. These non-toxic cleaners are particularly adaptable for the removal of graffiti therefrom. The particularly preferred cleaning composition set forth in this patent comprises 28% toluene, 10% methyl ethyl ketone, 13% xylene, 2% ethylene glycol n-butyl ether, 10% methylene chloride, 15% propane, 15% isopropanol, 2% methanol and 5% o-dichlorobenzene.
Further, methylene chloride lifts the paint off in large scabs instead of emulsifying the paint into a water soluble emulsion, and it leaves a residue on the surface to be cleaned. The drawbacks of this formula is that the methylene chloride has been banned in many states due to its toxicity, has been classified as a toxic and hazardous chemical by the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (O.S.H.A.) and the Environmental Protection Agency (E.P.A.), and is currently, and is currently the subject of proposals for the almost complete ban of the chemical from further use in the environment.
Priority U.S. application Ser. No. 07/423,258 which was filed Oct. 18, 1989 and its parent U.S. application Ser. No. 07/400,564, which was filed on Aug. 30, 1989, now U.S. Pat. No. 5,024,780, which issued on Jun. 18, 1991, are directed to a Cleaner for Treating a Surface. This patent is by Cassius Leys, the inventor of the present application. It provides a cleaner composition which comprises propylene carbonate, N-methylpyrrolidone, a hydroxypropyl cellulose thickening agent, an active ingredient selected from the group consisting of glycols and isocetyl alcohol and a surfactant. It does not provide for the use of dimethyl sulfoxide. While this cleaner composition is used to remove graffiti, paint and other coatings from many surfaces, it is not suited to remove graffiti on numerous plastic, coated polycarbonate, acrylic, plexiglass and glass surfaces as it attacks, melts or fogs and crazes these surfaces.
Priority U.S. application Ser. No. 07/423,258, which was filed on Oct. 18, 1989, is directed to a Cleaner for Treating Certain Surfaces. The application is by Cassius Leys, the inventor of the present application, and provides a cleaner composition for cleaning plexiglass by removing graffiti from a surface made of coated polycarbonate, acrylic, plexiglass, glass or certain plastics or a combination thereof. The cleaner comprises propylene carbonate in an amount between about 45 to about 55 parts; isocetyl alcohol in an amount between about 16 to about 22 parts; N-methylpyrrolidone in an amount between about 16 to about 22 parts; a proprietary additive in an amount between about 1 to about 3 parts; and, an ingredient selected from the group consisting of dipropylene glycol monomethyl ether acetate, dipropylene glycol methyl ether, diethylene glycol monoethyl ether acetate and diethylene glycol monoethyl ether, in an amount between about 8 to about 12 parts. It has now been found that while this composition performs, it does not perform as well as the plexiglass cleaner composition of the present application. This is believed due to the different ingredients and the different range of the common ingredients in each composition.
Other cleaners, such as AGP Wipe-Away by the assignee of the present application, remove graffiti, but do not act as effectively and with the desired very low evaporation rate and non-flammability features.